Council of Illinois University Senates

Minutes of November 15, 2004 Meeting

At Illinois State University

Normal, Illinois

(Approved)

Morning Session

Call to Order

The Council of Illinois University Senates meeting was called to order by Illinois State University Senate Chairperson Lane Crothers at 10:00 a.m.

Present: Lane Crothers, ISU, Yan Searcy, Chicago State University, Barb Lawrence, Eastern Illinois University, Allen Shub, Northeastern Illinois University, Paul Stoddard, Northern Illinois University, James Duggan, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Joel Hardman, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, Gerald Strom, University of Illinois-Chicago, Mary Mallory, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, Julie Mahoney, Western Illinois University

Absent: Gary Lyon, Governors State University, Pat Langley, University of Illinois-Springfield

Approval of March 29, 2004 Minutes: The Council of Illinois University Senates unanimously approved its minutes of March 29, 2004.

New Business:

I. Policy for Irregular Administrative Admissions (Western Illinois University)

Julie Mahoney, Senate Secretary, WIU, presented the issue of special admissions that circumvent the regular admissions policies at the university. These admissions are approved by administrators; however there is no oversight; the special admissions do not follow the special admissions policies. Professor Mallory inquired about the admission policies of other universities. Senator Crothers reported that there were no admissions at ISU that did not go through the regular admissions policies are the admission policy for special admissions. Professor Mahoney’s major concern was the fairness and transparency of the administrative admissions. Professor Crothers suggested that Professor Mahoney do further investigation and that the other CIUS representatives might inquire about special admission procedures on their respective campuses.

II. State Employees Ethics Act (University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign)
Documents Distributed:
1. Administrative Order (Summary of Areas Impacted by Ethics Act)
2. Ethics Act-Public Act 093-0615
3. Ethics Act-Public Act 093-0617

Mary Mallory, Senate Vice-Chairperson, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, initiated the discussion on the required participation of state employees in ethics training. Professor Mallory stated that some faculty believed that state employees should not be required to complete the training; however, legislators did not want to exempt federal employees because of “appearances”. Joel Hardman, Senate President, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, commented that the ethics test is not meant to test the individual’s ethics, but to ensure that there is an understanding of the ethics laws. Professor Mahoney replied that much of the resentment toward the mandatory ethics training stemmed from the fact that the motivation for the testing is not trusted. Paul Stoddard, Senate President, Northern Illinois University, noted that one might view the test as an empowering tool for employees who may not know their rights. The Council discussed various scenarios that may or may not be considered ethical behavior and the consequences of non-compliance.

III. Shared Governance

Yan Searcy, Senate Chairperson, Chicago State University, inquired about the cooperation between the governance bodies and the administrations on other campuses. He reported that there is an ongoing struggle at Chicago State concerning the lack of involvement of shared governance in decision-making processes. Senator Crothers stated that the administration at ISU, including the President and Provost, students, faculty and staff are structurally embedded in the decision-making processes. Representatives from each of these groups are members of the Senate. Professor Searcy stated that there was no central “committee bank” or place to find out where and what all of the committees on campus were. Professor Lawrence, Eastern Illinois Senate Representative, cautioned against committees overloaded with administrative representatives. She stated that such committees have proved to be ineffective. Professor Crothers recommended that the senates build strong relationships with the administrations in order to involve them in shared governance. He added that involving faculty in the decision making process makes implementation of policies much easier. Gerald Strom, Senate Chairperson, University of Illinois-Chicago, said that shared governance should hold the administration to the statutes of the constitution. Several CIUS representatives responded that not only was shared governance not involved in many administrative decisions, but there was also no clerical staff support for the senates. Professor Strom suggested that those senates submit requests to the Provosts for support staff. The Council also discussed release time for Senate Chairpersons/Presidents and increasing the shared governance’s visibility to the administration.

IV. Tenure/Salaries

Prof. Strom: Faculty have discussed the issue of “partial tenure” for 50% appointments. They receive half of a tenure credit each year. Deans like to hire at 75% for nine-month appointments and receive the remaining 25% through grants. The Senate is reviewing the issue.

Prof. Duggan: Union contracts require a student-teacher ratio that would affect that policy.

Prof. Strom: Regarding salary compression, new hires are exceeding current faculty salaries. We were told that we have to do this because of the market, but if you are hiring at 75%, where is the market?

Issues Pending:

V. MAP Funds to Private Institutions

James Duggan, Senate President, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, stated that he was opposed to the continued distribution of MAP (Monetary Assistant Program) grants to private institutions. He felt that only public universities should receive these funds, especially in the light of the current decrease in state funding of public universities. Professor Crothers noted that the MAP grants are based on need; however, the calculation of need is based on the cost of the education sought; thus, private institutions, because of higher tuitions, currently receive over half of the MAP funds. He also observed that many private institutions have strong political support and that the argument against the public funding of these institutions was “unsellable”. Legislative support for federal funding of only public institutions is in the minority. Professor Duggan noted that all state representatives have private colleges within their districts. He added that it would be helpful in lobbying efforts if the community colleges were also against state funding of private institutions. Professor Duggan agreed to develop a resolution on the issue for consideration by the 12 public university senates.

Afternoon Session

Issues Pending Continued:

VI. Truth in Tuition Law

Prof. Crothers: No dramatic effects at ISU have resulted from the Truth in Tuition Law. ISU has elected to freeze fees for four years for each year’s freshman/transfer student class. With low inflation, the Truth in Tuition can work. There has been no discussion that I am aware this year about tuition caps.

Prof. Hardman: Students end up on average paying a little more. Students that drop out after two years are those that are really affected when they re-enter.

Prof. Duggan: At SIU-Carbondale, faculty don’t want to raise admission standards and the Senate has gone on record that we do not want to have tuition increases.

Prof. Crothers: Even though the government has slashed funds for public universities, they have increased their mandates for them. Decrease in public funding could result in loss of tenure-track lines. I don’t believe that the State is still considering reappropriating the Income Fund (tuition and fees); I believe that they will leave the control of those funds in the hands of the university. We do need to continue to monitor the Truth in Tuition Law.

VII. IBHE Big Picture Meetings

Prof. Crothers: Some universities include the Senate chairpersons in the IBHE Big Picture Meetings. This is a non-issue this year because the meetings have only occurred in Springfield.

Prof. Duggan: It is my understanding that the IBHE doesn’t want representative attendance; only the attendance of the Chancellor and Provost and, according to the Provost, they will continue this practice.

Prof. Strom: Representation is not a problem on our campus.

Prof. Crothers: Nor at ISU; it really depends on the nature of the institution.

VIII. Faculty Productivity Report

Prof. Crothers: The faculty thought that the Faculty Productivity Report was fine. However, Kaplan is no longer concerned with faculty productivity.

Prof. Lawrence: They have dropped the objection to community colleges offering four-year degrees; it’s no longer even on the radar.

Prof. Duggan: We talked to our Provost and to Karnes and they reported that the IBHE will not proceed with this, but community colleges are already doing it by coordinating with four-year universities.

Prof. Crothers: It is useful to have the Faculty Productivity Report on file. Perhaps we should ask all university senates to consider endorsing it.

IX. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy

Prof. Crothers: Most ROTCs don’t have a problem with the “don’t ask-don’t tell policy”, which is the policy concerning revealing sexual preference in the armed services. The ROTC, however, is more open than the army.

Prof. Duggan: If we don’t allow the ROTC’s on campus, the federal government won’t provide funding to the university. If we take any federal funding, then we have to allow recruitment.

X. SURS

Prof. Crothers: All pension plans are expected to need a great amount of revenue to reach targets, which is where almost all of any new State money would go. The State proposes a new funding structure for retirees.

Prof. Duggan: They propose to change investment strategies and consolidate investments.

Prof. Crothers: I am not aware of any new activity concerning this issue. Madigan is objecting to a joint coalition. Typically, the Annuitants Associations on campuses are most informed about any changes to the pension systems.

XI. Health Benefits

Prof. Crothers: AFSME is the only body that negotiates our health benefits. Have any strides been made for faculty involvement in these negotiations? Universities have given up on the return of health benefit funds from the State.

Prof. Stoddard: The State has backed off on dropping Health Alliance. I am not sure of status of the Caremark mail order prescription program.

Prof. Crothers: Communication has not been good on this issue. We don’t know which pharmacies are participants in the plan.

Prof. Stoddard: I have heard that Caremark calls physicians to try to talk them out of the three-month prescriptions. However, I have also heard that doctors have said that they were not called. There is a concern about putting local pharmacies out of business. Caremark is not even an Illinois business.

Prof. Crothers: We can monitor this; we don’t have much information now.

Prof. Lawrence: The explanation from the State is that it is trying to move toward a self-insurance model.

Prof. Crothers: Quality Care is self-insurance; employees pay in and the money left over is investable.

XII. State Board Governing Tenure

Prof. Crothers: There is a proposal to have a state-level review of university decisions concerning tenure. It was proposed by a state legislator to “protect” faculty from local university abuses. All universities are opposed to such a review. There is no current activity on this issue.

XIII. Patriot Act Resolution

Prof. Crothers: ISU endorsed a Sense of the Senate Resolution concerning the Patriot Act on November 15, 2004. We also distributed information about data custodians, who are the individuals responsible for reviewing the requests concerning the Act and contacting the University Counsel, when appropriate, before releasing any information.

Prof. Searcy: Does our library keep past data records?

Prof. Crothers: I don’t think so. We asked for a university audit on how we have complied with such requests. We presented our resolution to Academic Senate at ISU with an attached “Quick Guide” for dealing with the requests, as well as the revised university policy on the release of confidential information.

Prof. Duggan: In June, the Illinois legislature will look to change the Illinois Library Confidentiality Act for public libraries in Naperville. A court order is required for the release of library records, but some residents in Naperville feel that the police department should be exempt from this requirement.

Prof. Stoddard: The Speaker of the House and another state representative came to the NIU campus recently. We spoke to the representatives about not being enamored with Karnes. We also raised issues with them about the Secret Service. The issue arose because of a protest during a recent event at which student protestors were intercepted by campus police. The students were filmed by campus police when they rejoined the main area of protest. We are considering a privacy policy for public activities. Reportedly, the tapes were destroyed, but we will monitor this to see what happens to the evidence.

Prof. Strom: We wanted a free speech policy in case the issue comes up so we copied the MIT policy.

Prof. Duggan: That policy was rather restrictive until recently.

Prof. Crothers: We rejected a public policy on free speech because it restricted speech.

The council will continue to monitor the issue.

XIV. Vendor Contracts

Prof. Stoddard: In 1998, we entered into an exclusivity contract for Pepsi products. We receive reimbursements from Pepsi at certain events and the money goes toward scholarships. Faculty bemoaned the loss of choice, but recognized the good use of money. In 2008, we will no longer be able to renew exclusive agreements because the law now prohibits it

Prof. Duggan: We have those type of contracts for certain purchases.

Prof. Duggan: We can still sign them, but cannot prohibit other vendors from selling their products at events sponsored by departments.

Prof. Crothers: We were able to convince vendors to place environmental RFPs into our vendor contracts.

XV. Textbook Issues

Prof. Searcy: Our bookstore consistently under-orders books. They cut the orders because they do not want to get stuck with inventory and restocking fees.

Prof. Crothers: We have two competitive bookstores, The Alamo and Barnes and Nobles, so they split the orders. Since they are in competition, they don’t want to annoy their clients by under ordering. There is a university policy that provides orders to private bookstores. Also, one of our Senate committees has discussed textbook rentals because of the rising cost of purchasing textbooks.

Prof. Stoddard: Faculty would have to keep the same book for three years.

Prof. Duggan: It takes a lot of money to set up.

Prof. Mahoney: The initial outlay for a program for textbook rentals is approximately $600,000 to start up. We just can’t afford it.

Prof. Stoddard: Part of the cost is in the bundled books, books with study guides, but we don’t have to order the bundles. We need to rethink how we deal with publishers. It is not as simple as publishers coming out with new editions, but the fact that when the bookstores buy back, the publishers and writers get nothing. With a no buy-back policy, maybe publishers would lower the costs.

Prof. Duggan: That won’t work because the bookstores will still charge what the market will bear. Also, we can’t have different prices for different states.

Prof. Hardman: Our primary texts are rental texts. We have a textbook rental fee of $37 each semester.

We have also considered buying books in majors—300 to 400 books—so that students aren’t buying introductory skills books.

Prof. Duggan: We discontinued it because of the costs involved; student-to-student peer selling was considered.

Prof. Searcy: You can actually loose money on it, but it does attract students.

XVI. Lobbying at the Capitol

Prof. Crothers: Our Vice President of Finance and Planning has suggested that we meet in Springfield during the legislative session. Pat Langley at UIS has asked that we bring people to that meeting to help to organize lobbying. We could invite university liaisons, lobbyist from our Annuitants Association—whoever can help.

Several CIUS members reported that they had been instructed to never contact an official in Springfield. Prof. Crothers noted that the members of CIUS would be at a CIUS meeting and therefore representatives of the university senates.

Prof. Duggan: Perhaps we should hold a meeting and invite representatives to it or make appointments to meet in legislative offices.

Prof. Stoddard: We would need to have an agenda set and questions prepared.

Prof. Crothers: If we want to talk to legislators at informational meetings, we should do so when the legislature is not in session. If we are lobbying, then we would meet in Springfield when the legislature is in session.

Prof. Stoddard: We have met with several legislators while in session and we could do this again if we prearrange meetings with legislators.

Prof. Crothers: This meeting might be on a Friday and then individuals could stay to lobby on Saturday.

Prof. Strom: I suggest a Thursday/Friday model.

Prof. Shub: Should we invite the Governor to the meeting?

Prof. Crothers: We could invite him.

Prof. Strom: We could invite state party leaders instead of the Governor.

Prof. Searcy: Should some of us focus on lobbying and others actively engage with the senators. We are learning more about the process, but we are not at the stage where we have an agenda.

Prof. Mahoney: If we find out how the process works, the Thursday/Friday might work. If we meet on Thursday and Friday, there might be more independent activity. The meeting in Springfield on Thursday would be an introduction to the process for meeting with committee members to talk about higher education.

Prof. Crothers: We could set up the meetings through university-governmental liaisons. Phil Adams is the liaison with the legislature at ISU. At the introductory meeting to learn about the process on Thursday, we could inform other CIUS members of our Friday appointments. In summary, we would meet in Springfield during the legislative session. We would have a two-day meeting, with a one-day training to receive information about lobbying. The second day would be the appointments with legislative committee staff members made by our university liaisons.

Prof. Stoddard: We would need to invite the liaisons and any other administrative staff to the lobbying training at the first meeting.

Prof. Mallory: Students were successful in lobbying through a letter-writing campaign. They also testified before the legislature. We may want to do this in a couple of years.

Prof. Crothers: We need to identify individual(s) who will do the lobbying training. If you know of people who would be effective and willing to do this, please contact me to let me know.

Prof. Strom: The U of I governmental liaison can talk to us.

Prof. Crothers: ISU’s liaison would also be a good information person.

Adjournment